Whats up /sci/tizens?
I work towards my physical anthropology master that I will have finished in 2021 at one of the better known universities in Germany. Our department recently announced new guidelines for speech used when presenting papers, in a bid to make them more inclusive and non-discriminatory. Use of "Easy Language" is encouraged, some words are not to be used anymore, the concept of race has been declared non-existent, instead of race we should refer to ethnicity. All fine and dandy with me, the problem I have is that it is contradictory to what is to be said, according to the new guidelines.
For example if I have a skeleton, I can tell with a high degree of confidence which sex, race/ethnicity it belonged to, I can make general and sometimes very precise assumption about his eating habits, lifestyle, health, even his IQ, speech impairments, many of his abilities. Observations like this inevitably lead to a qualitative classification or at least an qualitative assertion of abilities and such. It is impossible to look at any product of evolution without doing so when classifying it, but it is stark contrast to the new guidelines that have been published. To be specific: Making assumptions about the sex/race/health etc should not be made based on a qualitative basis that allows classification that is discriminatory. The example given was that a female skeleton is not to be classified as a "weaker" build. But what if it is? Its female, it doesnt have the same bone density, the same capacity to load muscle, etc. Under the new guidelines, assumptions like these are considered discriminatory.
>>cont.
I work towards my physical anthropology master that I will have finished in 2021 at one of the better known universities in Germany. Our department recently announced new guidelines for speech used when presenting papers, in a bid to make them more inclusive and non-discriminatory. Use of "Easy Language" is encouraged, some words are not to be used anymore, the concept of race has been declared non-existent, instead of race we should refer to ethnicity. All fine and dandy with me, the problem I have is that it is contradictory to what is to be said, according to the new guidelines.
For example if I have a skeleton, I can tell with a high degree of confidence which sex, race/ethnicity it belonged to, I can make general and sometimes very precise assumption about his eating habits, lifestyle, health, even his IQ, speech impairments, many of his abilities. Observations like this inevitably lead to a qualitative classification or at least an qualitative assertion of abilities and such. It is impossible to look at any product of evolution without doing so when classifying it, but it is stark contrast to the new guidelines that have been published. To be specific: Making assumptions about the sex/race/health etc should not be made based on a qualitative basis that allows classification that is discriminatory. The example given was that a female skeleton is not to be classified as a "weaker" build. But what if it is? Its female, it doesnt have the same bone density, the same capacity to load muscle, etc. Under the new guidelines, assumptions like these are considered discriminatory.
>>cont.
